On 10/12/2015 11:04 AM, Guillaume Picquet wrote:
> Le 12/10/2015 10:54, Marc Kleine-Budde a écrit :
>> On 10/12/2015 10:05 AM, Guillaume Picquet wrote:
>>> I've received a patched firmware from my provider, tested it and so far
>>> so good.
>> Good to hear that. Can you send the patches or at91_can.c to the list?
> It's your patch I gave my provider.
> 
> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/mkl/linux-can-next.git/commit/?h=at91-next&id=7234e9dee7d0df75de7ae14443a2306435750594

Ah, good to hear that this works for your usecase aswell. Can I add your
Tested-by Tag to the patch?

>>> I've connected 2 devices (AT91 based) at 1Mb/s.
>>> So far more than 470000000 frames received so far.
>>>   From the user-space point of view it's much better.
>>> Now the only way to know if rx overflow occur is to set SO_RXQ_OVFL
>>> flag, use recvmsg and check ancillary data.
>> No, that's not correct. With SO_RXQ_OVFL you'll detect overflows of the
>> socket. When there are overflows in the hardware the rx overrun in per
>> device statistics will be increased (see ifconfig) output.
> Ok good to know.
> So your saying that if I receive nothing on a socket with CAN_ERR_MASK 
> set 0x1FFFFFFFU it means that the hardware is handling CAN traffic well !

Yes.

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |